Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 911

Statement re #885 MOTION Administrative Relief Apples Administrative Motion For Clarification Of April 12 Order Apples Supplemental Statement Of Additional Facts Regarding Motion For Clarification by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 5/9/2012)

Exhibit D

Page 1 of 2

From:

Diane Hutnyan [[e-mail]]

Sent:

Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:40 PM

To:

Bartlett, Jason R.; Mazza, Mia

Cc:

AppleMoFo; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Samsung v. Apple

Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung Discovery Correspondence

Jason,
We do not need to do this. The Court’s Order of April 12 did not carve out any exceptions for witnesses
that Samsung did not depose before, or that Apple feels Samsung did not depose enough, or deposed
too much, and Apple’s filing on the 27th attempted to impose various other non-existent limitations on
the Court’s order that did not even include these.

It is evident that Apple is suggesting these new supposed limitations to create some more excuses for its
planned noncompliance, just as it did when it willfully failed to comply with the Court ’s December 22
order to produce these transcripts in the first place. I note that the April 12 order expressly rejects
Apple’s various excuses and limitations and enforces the original order.
Unless you indicate otherwise, by 5:00 pm PST today, we will assume that Apple is refusing to provide
these witnesses for deposition and will proceed accordingly.

From: Bartlett, Jason R. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:56 PM
To: Diane Hutnyan; Mazza, Mia
Cc: AppleMoFo; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Samsung v. Apple
Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung Discovery Correspondence
Dear Diane,
Despite our prior requests asking that you identify your desired deponents promptly, you are sending
us this list just one day before Judge Grewal's May 10th deadline for taking these depositions. This is
despite our production of the last of these transcripts on April 21st -- eighteen days ago , and six
days before Judge Grewal's April 27th deadline for compliance.
Moreover, despite our prior requests that you explain with specificity how any requested depositions are
reasonably occasioned by our transcript production, you have not done so. Indeed, the names of at least
some of the individuals identified below do not even appear in the transcripts produced. Samsung
also affirmatively declined to take Saku Hieta's deposition previously. For Emilie Kim, Samsung
previously deposed her for all of one hour, despite Ms. Kim's setting aside an entire day for her
deposition. Finally, as Samsung is well aware, it has already deposed Richard Howarth for more than
thirteen hours.
Please explain, with specific citations to transcript pages, why Samsung believes that it is entitled to take
these depositions. Please provide your response by no later than 9pm tonight, so that we can determine
whether we need to raise Samsung's very late demand for these depositions with the Court.
Jason

Jason R. Bartlett
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market St.

Page 2 of 2

San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: 415.268.6615

From: Diane Hutnyan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:21 AM
To: Mazza, Mia
Cc: AppleMoFo; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Samsung v. Apple
Subject: Apple v. Samsung Discovery Correspondence

Dear Mia,
Please find below the list of deponents that Samsung has selected for further deposition pursuant to the April 12,
2012 Court order.
1.
Richard Howarth
2.
Emilie Kim
3.
Saku Hieta
4.
Priya Balasubramaniam
5.
Andrew Bright
Apple should immediately provide dates that these witnesses are available for deposition. Due to time constraints,
Samsung is willing to stipulate to extend the time to depose these individuals past May 10, 2012, provided that all
depositions take place by May 18, 2012. Samsung expects that Apple will be willing to so stipulate as it withheld
more than 200 deposition transcripts, amounting to more than 20,000 total pages of testimony. If Apple is
unwilling to stipulate, then we expect the identified deponents to appear for deposition on May 10 at our offices in
Redwood Shores.
We look forward to hearing from you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that,
if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including
any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee
(or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or
any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the
sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.

---------------------------------------------------------------------